Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[_stemelbow]

Uh oh, DJ. You just double posted the same post in your rage. I'm just concerned about your hostility. I want more for you.

Also

Angry is evil and false, happy is righteous and true.

Is not anywhere near a true statement regarding my thoughts.

But what is true is you are expressing some misplaced anger. in this case, I think it best if you let it go and move on. I offer this advice to help you.

[_Stormy Waters]

Ain't he cute everyone? I sure think so. Hope he realizes his hostility is self-destructive and he moves on.

Yeah Stem, we get it. You are trying to annoy people with this shtick. Trying to get under people's skin.

It's not clever and not persuasive. It's obvious and overplayed. Got anything else? At least switch it up a little.

[_stemelbow]

Yeah Stem, we get it. You are trying to annoy people with this shtick. Trying to get under people's skin.

It's not clever and not persuasive. It's obvious and overplayed. Got anything else?

What do you mean anything else?
I've given my thoughts to the topic most recently today. Please read them and comment if it pleases you. No need for you, a revered moderator 'round these parts, to get all involved in DJ's misdirections. Me? I can't help myself. I"m just a regular poster.

I truly hope more for DJ and others here. This type of rage just seems destructive to me. I'm sorry it's a tangent but I will risk a full-blown turn-over of the topic if it can in some small way help him.

[Guest]

Uh oh, DJ. You just double posted the same post in your rage. I'm just concerned about your hostility. I want more for you.

Also

Angry is evil and false, happy is righteous and true.

Is not anywhere near a true statement regarding my thoughts.

But what is true is you are expressing some misplaced anger. in this case, I think it best if you let it go and move on. I offer this advice to help you.

You know, "David," what's even sadder than your attempts at being a troll is that you're not any good at it. Why don't you just type, "I am here to try to get Justin to defend himself from my puerile fantasy that he is angry at the world, because I can't justify my Lord and Savior's actions under the plain language of the legal document that is the LDS Church's EULA"? There's not a single rational adult who doesn't see your posts for what they are, so why not save time and just type that?

Just to let you know, I've been trying out some of your deep thoughts on people I know. I've told a few people that "faith is evidence that I have faith because of my faith," and they all thought it was astoundingly stupid. That means they were angry, right?

Anyway, I bet not one single person is preventing you from demonstrating that LDS Church gives its bishops the authority to personally investigate the identities of total strangers on the internet who are not members of the bishop's ward. So if you really wanted to show that this heretofore unknown scope of agency exists, you could do it.

Don't you miss the good old days, when a cult leader could get an unlawful order to destroy a printing press to try to stop people saying things he didn't like? Nowadays, they have to send their disciples to troll message boards instead. What has the world come to, huh?

[_Darth J]

I'm sorry it's a tangent but I will risk a full-blown turn-over of the topic if it can in some small way help him.

Stemelbow, just a word of advice: when you are down on your knees in front of your Lord and Savior, Daniel Peterson, make sure it's to pray, okay?

[_stemelbow]

You know, "David," what's even sadder than your attempts at being a troll is that you're not any good at it. Why don't you just type, "I am here to try to get Justin to defend himself from my puerile fantasy that he is angry at the world, because I can't justify my Lord and Savior's actions under the plain language of the legal document that is the LDS Church's EULA"? There's not a single rational adult who doesn't see your posts for what they are, so why not save time and just type that?

Hey bub, why are you so upset? I won't type that because those aren't anywhere near my thoughts. First off, I don't want you to defend yourself about being angry(note: I didn't say angry at the world at all). You are angry at folks like me, though. That is clear. Don't defend it. Accept it. And then, move on.

Just to let you know, I've been trying out some of your deep thoughts on people I know. I've told a few people that "faith is evidence that I have faith because of my faith," and they all thought it was astoundingly stupid. That means they were angry, right?

Not at all. People are entitled to their opinions. Let's not get all focused on me and past conversations. let's move on. Sound good? Start afresh?

Anyway, I bet not one single person is preventing you from demonstrating that LDS Church gives its bishops the authority to personally investigate the identities of total strangers on the internet who are not members of the bishops ward. So if you really wanted to show that this heretofore unknown scope of agency exists, you could do it.

I've already commented on that,DJ. This is what I'm talking about when I say you don't let things go. It's time to move on, pal. I think you getting all worked up over my thoughts, which by the way you have wrong again, on this is not doing you any good at all.

Don't you miss the good old days, when a cult leader could get an unlawful order to destroy a printing press to try to stop people saying things he didn't like? Nowadays, they have to send their disciples to troll message boards instead. What has the world come to, huh?

Heya. Dan didn't send me anywhere. And believe you me, he's not a cult leader by any sense of the word. And, coincidentally, I can't be considered his disciple by any sense of that word.

I encourage you to stop worrying about me. And start looking inward a little. Just a start. It may prove to help you greatly.

Just trying to help.

[_Darth J]

[real name deleted], in your next post, please indicate where I can verify that the LDS Church gives its ward bishops the authority to investigate the identities of anonymous message board posters because said bishops feel that the anonymous message board posters are saying things inconsistent with church standards.

[_stemelbow]

[real name deleted], in your next post, please indicate where I can verify that the LDS Church gives its ward bishops the authority to investigate the identities of anonymous message board posters because said bishops feel that the anonymous message board posters are saying things inconsistent with church standards.

I've shared my view on this here already. Rest assured, you are off on my take regarding this matter.

How's that? You want to zero in on someone. Have at it, hodge-podge of hostility. Although for your sakes, I hope you reconsider.

[_Molok]

I've shared my view on this here already. Rest assured, you are off on my take regarding this matter.

How's that? You want to zero in on someone. Have at it, hodge-podge of hostility. Although for your sakes, I hope you reconsider.

God, you're such a one note idiot. It's not even worth the effort to creatively insult you anymore.

[_Darth J]

[real name deleted], in your next post, please indicate where I can verify that the LDS Church gives its ward bishops the authority to investigate the identities of anonymous message board posters because said bishops feel that the anonymous message board posters are saying things inconsistent with church standards.

I've shared my view on this here already. Rest assured, you are off on my take regarding this matter.

Page 4 of this thread:

So information that a person is a bishop is limited to what the Church requires and is only used for Church purposes? You are completely mistaking the spirit of this. indeed, any effort to convict Dan or the bishop friend of his on this will be completely laughed out of church court. Why? Because this has nothing to do with asking if an anonymous attacker who boasts about being a bishop is really a bishop. This is all abotu using information about members for business reasons or for political reasons.

Stemelbow, please do the following:

1. show me the language from the license agreement that says a bishop can use the Church's confidential data for whatever he wants, as long as it is not for business or political reasons;

2. tell me the legal basis for reading the unambiguous terms of a revocable license agreement according to ad hoc, self-serving assertions instead of the plain language of the documents. I bet the Second Restatement of Contracts or Corbin on Contracts would be great places to start!